This week, the world is abuzz with the Senate report on “enhanced interrogation techniques.” As Catholics, we believe in the dignity of the human person. Torture is intrinsically evil, and thus, forbidden. The question arises when we ask whether these techniques constitute torture from a Catholic moral perspective.
The Catechism (2297) defines torture as use of “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.” Before going on, I think I need to clarify what “violence” means in this context as its meaning is a little different from our everyday use of it – in vernacular English, “moral violence” is an oxymoron. In his Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr John Hardin defines violence as: “Physical or psychological force used to compel one to act against one’s choice, or against an inclination to choose in a certain way.” Violence is not about how much damage was done to the person but how forcibly or coercively changed their will was due to the actions of another. For example, showing a criminal a video that appears to be his wife being dismembered is torture even if the video is all special effects – this is moral violence.
An example of the effects of one practice that might be torture (if used for extended periods).
There is a lot of debate in the secular press over the effectiveness of such methods versus gentler methods. We, however, know there are moral absolutes. No matter how effective waterboarding or other methods were in getting confessions, if they are torture we can never consent.
Now, let’s examine the various methods used. First, since these people were guilty or highly suspected of committing serious offenses, the government had the right and duty to imprison them and this is not torture. This includes keeping them in prison and restricting their diet (so long as they provided them with sufficient calories to survive on). However, confining a prisoner to an exceptionally small space for an extended period could exert excessive coercion and constitute torture (from what I read, it seems likely but not certain that the CIA’s use of confinement was torture).
The next issue is sleep deprivation by keeping them in bright rooms for extended periods of time. Police have the right to use a certain amount of moral violence so long as it does not overwhelm or coerce the free will of the victim. For instance, most police interrogation rooms are lighted in a way that makes it uncomfortable for those they’re interrogating; police can throw you in a holding cell on suspicion of a crime without actually charging you for 24 hours – I think we can all agree that such means are not torture. Now, there is not a clear line where this becomes torture and the CIA kept someone up for 48 straight hours, which is probably torture, but I hesitate to give a definitive judgement.
A demonstration of waterboarding
Waterboarding is clearly torture. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted 75 seconds to hold the “world record.” Any unwilled suffering that changes the will of a criminal mastermind like him in 75 seconds is obviously violence in the moral sense. The fact that it makes your body think it’s drowning may also make it violence in the physical sense. However, even if it is simply moral violence, making someone believe they are seconds from dying is sufficient moral violence to constitute torture. Remember that torture is about how coercive the person’s will is and not how much damage it does to their body. From what I understand, waterboarding makes you feel like drowning, but you’re not really drowning; thus I would consider it moral violence and not physical violence. It is obviously force used to compel him to reveal information against his own choice.
There is also the issue of rectal feeding and hydration. I have to admit I don’t understand this enough to make a serious judgement. I don’t think I need to point out beating people to get confessions is torture.
Although it is clear that the CIA waterboarded 3 criminals, I think it is important to note that in comparison with those countries the US is fighting, the USA is still morally superior. Torturing three criminals is repugnant, but committing genocide against innocent people (as ISIS has done) is many times more horrendous.
Note: Between writing the first draft and this final draft, I spoke with a priest who is heading to Rome to teach Moral Theology and he also had trouble clearly defining where legitimate coercion ends and torture begins.
EDIT: several people have asked me why I have the last paragraph comparing the USA to it’s enemies. 1. I want to remain outside politics and I think this helps avoid my writing being interpreted as taking sides in a political debate. 2. Despite doing some evil stuff, when you compare the rap sheet of the USA and it’s current enemies (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Syria, etc.), the USA clearly has less evil (I don’t think a complete analysis is needed).
NO! Waterboarding is NOT torture! And just because we are Catholic, does NOT mean we are ALL pussies! If you are not intelligent enough to know if waterboarding, or bathing, or showering, or swimming, or diving, is torture, then read what Jesus said in the scripture. Do you think that Jesus was torturing Peter when He commanded Peter to walk on the stormy Sea of Galilee, let him seem to drown under there, BEFORE pulling him up?
If you want to know what torture is, then ask the Jews and Pope John Paul II, and Maximilian Colby, and Faustina about Auschwitz. And ask the Yazitis, and Kurds, and Peshmerga, and Coptic Christians, and James Foley, and Daniel Pearl; ask Reyhaneh Jabbari and millions of other victims of the Muslim so-called “faith.”
Even ask St Michael, Abraham, Lot, Moses, the Maccabees, Jesus and the Apostles, St Padre Pio if waterboarding (LOL) is torture!
If you want to learn how to torture, then go to the Democrat’s Planned Parenthood clinics, or ISIS, or Saddam Hussein’s family, or North Korean government, or Iranian government, the ones who practice it.
Do you think that Jesus condemns striking back against evil in righteous anger? Then read Mark chapter 3:
“Again He entered the Synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They watched Him to see whether He would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. And He said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” Then He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. He
looked around at them with anger; He was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.”
What utter nonsense! Just because others have done worse or do worse or will continue to do worse is no defense for this action. To inflict grave psychological suffering is not charity- it’s not even naturally just our courageous. It’s a cowardly and sinful act masquerading as a false sense of masculinity. Believe it or not, to show mercy to captives is not rejecting ones masculinity- but actually fulfilling it
Calling something that you are incapable of comprehending, such as intellectuality, “utter nonsense” does not make you right. It just reveals your violent bullying tendencies. It is “your way or the highway” even when you have no idea what you are doing, and you have no idea what you are talking about. For example, you actually stated that waterboarding is NOT a form of charity! My God! You are violent! Waterboarding is only a harmless form of communication. There is no physical or psychological damage from waterboarding. Grow up. I suppose you prefer beheading or maybe just cutting off a few fingers! No wonder people call Catholics like you “hypocrite.”
“Waterboarding is not a routine or common practice. It is extremely rare, and it was only done in dire situations where days or minutes have separated the USA from a major terrorist attack.”
This says nothing about whether it is moral or not. Both morality and immorality can be common or rare.
hey Father (the LC wasn’t disbanded yet?), how are you gonna’ get the bad man to tell you where the bomb is planted, etc?
guys like you dislike harder methods. What exactly is your solution?
Chis, I do not care about what ‘Christopher Michael’ said.
Here is the question you create, what is ‘grave’?
The fundamental problem is modernist/liberal-progressive forces in and outside the Church are telling the lies of relativism that pervert the truth.
Truth is unchanging; when one breaks the arm of another, it is always the same – it is unchanging.
Hey Chris? How are you going to get terrorists to tell you their evil plans? You gonna’ treat them with kindness and they will spill the beans?
man up!
So… your morality allows you to do things that are in themselves immoral as long as you have a good reason? Sounds like the logic of abortion.
I reject the premise that the solution to waging war well is to extract information from terrorists. It seems like we have a couple of choices: either we can live however we want, but to effect our illusion we give over responsibility to certain agents who go about contravening the law so we can live in our dillusion.
Option 2 we can recognize the dangers of the world,confront our completely self serving foreign policy that has got us into this mess, and go about a strategic and open purification something akin to Italy post world war 2. This would involve closing our borders to certain peoples, and doing less to destabilize regimes we don’t like.
Option 3 we do both… Such that we withdraw the role of the CIA and other groups so they don’t violate the law, but refuse to lower our standards if freedom at all costs.
Option a is lazy, Pollyannaish stupidity that foresakes the very principles our country was founded upon. Option c is an irresponsible rejection of the good of politics as a subordinate portion of the common good.
Only option b maintains our responsibility to our citizens and foreigners- because only it engages in the truth. And that truth telling will have consequences that people, that the world doesn’t like. So be it. Christians are called to live in the truth and so be free, not live in freedom and call it the truth
Got it. So your moral equivalency means that as far as you can tell, the US does the same “torture” as other places?
And your chosen option 2/B seems to indicate that we brought this on ourselves? The Jihadi crazies would never ever have bothered us if we didn’t provoke it?
hahahahahaha……………jihadwatch.org
Because there is moral culpability on our end in no way equivocates in such a way as to say others are innocent or we are just as wrong. I think if we lived authentically for freedom, we might even be more of a target – which wouldn’t be our fault.
Besides —who cares about who is to blame? The real question is how do we live out freedom authentically? By pyschologically traumatizing those who we suspect don’t like us, or know don’t like us?
Ps. It’s not manly to demean a person by making them eat food through their rectum. That’s authentic masculinity in the same vein that poisoning your fertility is authentic feminism.
Worked when we interrogated Nazis and Communists. Works for the Israelis interrogating the likes of Hamas and Abu Nidal. Somehow I do not think the IDF, for all their faults, are pansies.
Yeah, there’s evil everywhere you look. What’s your point?
My point was that not resorting to torture has worked for the Israelis in their war on terror. When people for whom the terrorist threat is larger refuse to stoop to our tactics, we have a problem.
Israel tortures children which I think is wrong. Jews do not follow Christian moral principles. For them, Jewish life is more valuable than goyim life. The survival of their Jewish state is more important that the human rights of Palestinians.
And you may call it a war on terror but it is colonization and illegal occupation.
The Catholic Church has refused to support Zionism from the very start. Although the Vatican has recognized Israel’s existence in 1993 the Vatican will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The main reason why why the Vatican established diplomatic relations with Israel was to protect Church properties and holy places in the holy land.
I had to reread your statement several times to see if my eyes were deceiving me — The CIA was being CHARITABLE?? Waterboarding KSM was charitable?? You have got your head screwed on backwards sir. I will say that only in retrospect can we say that there was NEVER ever going to be a plot that resulted in “millions” dying at the hands of al Quaida. But to compare KSM to Hitler, or Pol Pot is ludicrous. How many millions did al Quaida kill? OBL killed thousands, not millions. Yes, it was horrible, but what was al Quaida’s goal? To cost us MONEY. In that, they succeeded on a huge scale. They tried, and succeeded once.
I’m a trained engineer and had to laugh out loud reading that they imagined they could bring down bridges by “loosening bolts!” But in their stated goal of engaging us in a long-term struggle they won there too. We sank to their moral level and did it with dizzying speed.
What sickens me is seeing all manner of moral contortions over the past few days, as Catholics attempt to find the moral high ground under their feet, but guess what? We don’t occupy that high ground. No, we are not clearly “more evil” but we sure as Hades cannot cast the first stone. And to compare Christ letting Peter begin to sink into the water with the horrible act of waterboarding is a true sin.
And whereas we have the duty to arrest those who break our laws, we only have that right when due process is followed and only within our own territories. Torturing people overseas, where they are not prisoners of war, isn’t the same thing at all. This entire fiasco is going to down in history as at least a debacle or war crimes, and worse. And just because a priest was found and asked to reassure the writer that even he wasn’t sure what constituted torture, well bully for you…. If you want to face God’s judgment with that kind of “the dog ate my homework” excuse, well, I hope God is merciful to all of us. I personally wouldn’t want to bet my immortal soul on that one.
I don’t want to let this devolve into a Godwin’s Law type thread, so I’ll leave St. Maximilian Kolbe and the other victims of the concentration camps where they were trotted out. But in NO way were the CIA’s actions remotely “good”. ISIS is slaughtering Christians wholesale, and why? You don’t think, not even for a minute, that they figure we have it coming to us? How many innocents did WE slaughter? How many drone strikes killed the innocent as we comforted ourselves with lies about those strikes being ” surgical”? Well there’s no such thing as a surgical strike. And if you want to call evils “good,” then the world is upside down.
“I think it is important to note that in comparison with those countries the US is fighting, the USA is still morally superior.” What kind of talk is this from a priest? No doubt every soul in Hell argues that he is morally superior to his neighbor. Those in Heaven confess themselves to have fallen short of the glory of God and, like St. Paul, each counts himself the chief of sinners.
Howard is right.
How many babies are killed in the US every day?
How much fornication and adultery is commited in the US every day?
How many divorces are commited in the US every day?
How many women speak in public in the US every day ?
How much blasphemy is uttered in the US every day ?
How many lies are told in the US every day ?
How many thefts are there in the US every day ?
How much idolatry is commited in the US every day ?
IN SHORT:
How many sins are commited in the US, EVERY SINGLE DAY ?
If you count the number of sins commited in the US, every single day, and then compare the number of sins commited on American soil every day, to that of other countries, I doubt very much that the US comes out any cleaner than the rest.
And if, summa sumarum, your country sins more than others, then it is straight out a lie to claim the US to be “morally superior” to other countries.
Just that claim in itself is a violation of at least two Commandments:
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not lie.
So, if you claim to be “morally superior” to other countries, then start by counting the sins commited in the US every single day, and after that, proove that number to be lesser than the ones you claim to be “morally superior” to.
I most eagerly await your calculations.
I think you lost your entire argument, and your list became bunk, when you sighted “women speaking in public” as a sin. Clearly anyone who thinks that a woman speaking in public is a sin, is himself demon possessed.
No Christoffer.
There was no “argument”.
I was asking for the exact number of sins commited on American soil every day, compared to the exact number of sins commited by the countries you claim to be “morally superior” to.
But instead of calculating the exact number of sins, you started making excuses for yourself, by not counting women who speak in public as a sin, and then you called anyone who considers women speaking in public a sin, “demon possesed”.
Although St. Paul clearly stated that women should not speak in the assemblies.
“Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for they are not allowed to speak, but to be in subjection, just as The Written Law also says. ”
Corinthians 14:34 / Aramaic Bible in Plain English.
So Christoffer. It was you who lost.
Because “Feminism” is The Whore of Babylon.
And “Equality” is The Mark of the Beast.
And I am still awaiting the exact number of sins commited on American soil every single day.
Women who speak in public / assemblies, included.
Has to do with the political situation in the USA (where 80 to 90% of my readers reside). Of the 2 main political parties, the only one that condemns the US’s use of torture, also tries to make it seem like the US is worse than some pretty repugnant regimes. In a way, I’m trying to say that both parties are morally inadequate not just one. As a priest, I feel obliged to avoid falling fully into one parties camp or the other’s but to present moral principles and their application to current issues.
I agree, but in the passage I quoted you were not talking about political parties. In fact the whole mess involved the cooperation of both parties. This is something that should make every American ashamed, not a mere opportunity for scoring political points. It is also something that should make every American afraid, because once a government acquires the habit of torture, it will find more and more “special circumstances” for which torture is “necessary”.
I am not mentioning them by name as remaining at arms length from politics – which I believe is proper for priests – I don’t think it’s necessary. I knew, as you can find a few comments here, that those in the pro-torture party would accuse me of simply being an agent for the other party and I thought that this paragraph would solidify that I was just speaking on principles and applying them to situations, and not trying to promote a particular party.
In other words, since most of this article could seem like it is from party A’s playbook (even though it is a moral teaching apart from political parties), I wanted to distance myself by making a statement directly contrary to party A.
OK, I can see that. I wish you had chosen a different statement, though, because it is not enough to simply be better than al Qaeda and ISIS; in part because God does not judge on a sliding scale, and in part because, since so much has been given to us, much will be required.
I think we agree. I may not have worded it best.
Two thoughts-
First–if we tied our hands as tightly in WWII as some want today–would we be marching to swastika drumbeats?.
Second–making it hard to figure out who is right is how everything and anything physically gross is almost automatically labeled “torture.” I recently saw an activist describe a procedure as “torture” which sounds gross to the average layperson” but which is a normal but extreme medical procedure and is NOT a torture technique.
First — let us note exactly what you are doing here. You are presenting an imaginary scenario. You can imagine a situation in which Catholic moral teaching was taken seriously; you can imagine that this caused the Nazis to win. Then you argue that this history, which exists only in your imagination, is a sound piece of evidence to be considered that indicates we should, in fact, imitate the Nazis. We should do evil that good might result, eh?
Second — an “extreme medical procedure”, when applied wrongly, can indeed be torture. Amputating a hand due to gangrene is not torture; amputating a hand because the amputee is a political opponent is torture.
The problem is we did not condone such tactics in WWII. In fact, when we found enemies who did so, the usual response was a drumhead court martial and a firing squad. Our hands today are looser than when we fought Hitler and Tojo. Nor does even the regular military today allow such practices except when training our own men – the CIA here is a break from our traditions.
“The problem is we did not condone such tactics in WWII.”
Really? Google Operation Teardrop. Educate yourself.
A couple of things: inflicting physical or psychological pain is “torture” if it is done for its own sake (even if inflicting the pain itself is for the sake of an ulterior motive). In torture, the pain is the cause of the desired outcome (information, confession of guilt, or what have you). This is always and everywhere immoral. In a medical treatment, on the other hand, the pain is only a side effect; it is neither desired nor intended. Even in that case the pain caused should be in proportion to the benefit obtained (amputating someone’s hand to heal a splinter would, obviously, be excessive).
I have to agree with Fr. Schneider that deliberately giving someone the sensation of drowning is an example of inflicting pain (in this case psychological) for its own sake. It must, therefore, be rejected as an interrogation technique.
Second, using immoral practices does not really improve your chances in war. In fact, they tend to waste your resources. (For example, carpet bombing Hamburg was immoral; it also wasted thousands of pounds bombs that could have been used for better purposes.)
1. I would condemn certain American practices in WWII.I’m not an expert on the forms of torture used, but terror bombing entire cities (including the atomic bomb) is clearly immoral.
2. I am very cautious to avoid calling things torture simply because their gross. For example, since I’ve read up on it since I wrote this, I realize rectal feeding (which is gross) is a legitimate medical procedure. However, it might also be used as part of moral violence of degrading a person.
Also, I disagree with the idea of rectal feeding being evil. It’s sole purpose is to demean, humiliate and degrade. Whether it is torture strictly speaking or some lesser but also gross form of moral injustice, I don’t know
Rectal feeding for a genuine medical purpose is one thing, where the subject cannot eat using his own mouth, but here, the prisoner was able to make use of his mouth; I would say at the least that in the cases described in the report, if it is not torture i itself, it is certainly forced sodomy. That our government even encourages that should be concerning to a Catholic; even more concerning is it when it takes place under the supervision, as here, of a Catholic official.
The rectal feeding was used on those on a hunger strike. If the killers had starved to death you would have been weeping and moaning about that, so no matter what was done the intelleigence officers cannot win. The armchair quarterbacking on this in the Catholic blogosphere has been nauseating. If this is what Catholic moral reasoning has deteriorated to, where someone like of Mark Shea is considered a thought leader, we are in deep trouble.
I think this is another issue that deserves a fuller treatment. I have heard that according to some UN convention, prisoners should be given the right to do a hunger strike, and thus slowly commit suicide. It’s an interesting moral question to ask at what point we have a more of obligation to prevent them from doing this.
However, the CIA agents were motivated towards rectal feeding (as opposed to a more standard IV drip) with the goal of humiliating and demeaning prisoners which if done systematically as they did would constitute torture by moral violence. Note: the torture here would not be the rectal feeding alone but the systematic humiliation of them and rectal feeding is but one part of that.
So if there are two approaches to keep the terrorist alive, we have to accept the one that makes them feel more comfortable? Humiliating a terrorist is something we should be highly concerned about? What about the dignity and humanity of the people they murdered and their compatriots plan to murder in the future?
No. My point is that “systematic humiliation” – which seems to be the CIA’s tactic – would constitute moral violence as indicated in the definition of torture given by the Catechism. If the CIA chose rectal feeding over IV drip simply because it was cheaper and they didn’t have stacks of money to pay for the prisoners care, that would be perfectly moral. It is not that an IV drip is more comfortable than rectal feeding but that in modern medicine it is only used when an IV drip is unavailable or if for some reason an IV drip can’t be used on the patient. Rectal feeding only becomes torture when used as means of humiliation as part of systematic humiliation; rectal feeding in itself is not torture. Systematic humiliation to get confessions from prisoners is torture.
Demeaning, humiliating, and degrading someone can be a form of moral violence as the Catechism defines torture. I concur that rectal feeding is not physical violence but a medical procedure that is rarely used because on IV drip is more effective most of the time.
The last paragraph of ‘but hey we’re not as bad as other people’ seems to excuse our use of torture. It is an irresponsible statement. Keep to the moral absolutes.
Torture doesn’t have to be done for any particular purpose. Any intentional infliction of extreme or extensive pain or suffering on a helpless victim to cause distress is torture.
Waterboarding is obviously torture.
Starving people is obviously torture.
Forcibly sleep-depriving people for days and days on end is obviously torture.
Subjecting people to disturbing music and sounds for days on end is obviously torture.
Subjecting people to extended isolation is obviously torture.
Stripping people and exposing them for days on end is obviously torture.
Forcing people to repeatedly view images or videos that violate their deeply held beliefs is torture.
Intentionally inspiring deep fear in people repeatedly is torture.
Our government systematically inflicted pain and suffering on (sometimes innocent) detainees ‘arrested’ and held without due process and usually ‘disappeared’ without recourse to legal aid, health care, their families, the church or any outside contact that might shed light on their mistreatment.
And we’re armchair debating whether this was technically “torture” and whether it was “wrong”??! Where is our moral compass?
Here’s a quick test: have what was done to those men done to you…then tell me whether you consider it torture.
I have no intention of excusing torture. If you understood this, sorry.
My problem comes from the general (nonreligious) news in the US where the only ones who condemn torture seem to also say that the US is worse than Al Qaeda, and I want to avoid that excess.
“Torture is intrinsically evil, and thus, forbidden.”
– Does ‘thou shall not kill’ point to an intrinsic evil? Is it thus ‘forbidden’?
“Catechism (2297) defines torture as use of “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or
satisfy hatred.”
– So is to use violence to ‘frighten opponents’ and keep them from attacking torture? Was dropping the A-bombs to force Japan to the peace table, and saving untold more lives than not dropping the bombs, torture?
“Violence is not about how much damage was done to the person but how forcibly or coercively changed their will was due to the actions of another. For example, showing a criminal a video that appears to be his wife being dismembered is torture even if the video is all special effects – this is moral violence.”
Herein all of this is one of the evils unleashed during the V2 period and since, one of Screwtape’s tools. The effemitization and feminizing of the cultures of the church and society to such an extent that words and the Word becomes emotive rather than rational.
There is no such thing as “moral violence”. A thing is moral or immoral. Violence is merely a descriptor of an act, it is never a noun. This is a Screwtape perversion of language creating a deep corruption of the intellect and its understanding of morality and reason and emotions – it corrupts all of man.
It is critically important to remember Original Sin is about the ego and intellect; “your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.” What lies along that path is unexpected. What is found is not rationality but emotionalism. It comes because man’s intellect eventually runs into the supernatural, and being left unable to rationalize any further, and unwilling to submit, becomes emotionalized.
This is where the West is today.
It is also important to remember Christ never taught by appeal to emotions, nor do the Ten Commandments speak to emotions.
As for the rest of the assertions in this piece. They are all built upon this emotion based relativism. Even in all the examples one has no idea where the author himself “is” on the relative pain/emotion spectrum. Who is to define the point? Shall we, since we should “be like” the children turn to them and let them decide that point?…
The only one who can saying something “is” and make it truth is God.
When man does it, he’s recommitting the central error of Original Sin.
Emotivism is intrinsically evil…. as is effemitism and as largely practiced today – feminism.
Amen, and how much more success has Screwtape attained in the decades since the book was first published – beyond his wildest dreams, I am sure. I think many of the people on this page need to re-read, or maybe read, the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, in order to ground themselves in truth.
But Fr. Harrison, no modernist he, in his treatment of this subject, seems to disagree with your assessment.
I think part of our disagreement stems from my use of terms specific to Catholic moral theology such as “intrinsic evil” and “moral violence.” I think we might build have a fruitful discussion if you understood those terms.
Fr. I don’t think moral theology, the way it is presently carried out, is overly helpful to us. A moral theology of absolutes, oddly enough, is unable to tell us when a certain level of coercion amounts to torture.
In your article, you use constitutional, legal standards to refer to whether or not imprisoning someone for, say, 24 hours, constitutes torture in a moral sense. But this is absurd. Is 36 hours torture? How about 37? and so on. God did not provide for the number of hours of incarceration before the incarceration becomes torture.
When JPII talked about torture, he said it was always wrong and can never be approved. That is the only absolute here. But what morally constitutes torture is a vexing question.
I think that the only rule to apply is, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ We have to ask ourselves if we are concerned with the good of the person in question whenever we do something. When the prisoner is being treated merely as an object for the purpose of accomplishing some other good, then that is less then humane.
I think that the Pope wanted us to look at things positively, not negatively. Of course, torture is always wrong. He did not bother to try to define it, because that is a legal question, not a moral one. That is why you instinctively adverted to legal definitions and norms, and not definitions from moral theology.
The point is to treat every person humanely. If that is always our guide, then we will not torture. When we fail to consider the good of the prisoner, or to consider that the prisoner is a human being and therefore, by right, should be treated humanely, we will from time to time do things that the law will call torture.
But it cannot be the role of moral theology to define what constitutes legal torture. It does not have the tools to carry out this task. It can help the law, but it cannot substitute for it. Thus, the condemnations of torture by Catholics using Catholic moral theology are not entirely on point.
I think we basically agree.
“But it cannot be the role of moral theology to define what constitutes legal torture.” I used categories of moral theology not legality. I’ve heard debate on whether some of these methods are legally torture and I’m not sure since my legal training is just about nil. My point is to argue they were torture according to Catholic moral theology as certain Catholics are trying to argue otherwise (even priests I know).
Yes, thank you for your reply Fr. I agree that we can, after the fact, evaluate what was done in particular circumstances [as for example revealed in the recently released report] and, as Catholics, say that what happened was torture. But at the same time, your article did cite to legal standards of what constitutes coercion, standards which I am familiar with from my training in the law. Using such standards to define torture from the perspective of moral theology puts the cart before the horse.
As to whether what occurred is legally torture, I have not looked into the matter thoroughly; but from a perusal of some American and international law, it seems to me that on the face, we have many cases of illegal torture here.
Whether the perpetrators should be pardoned or not is also an interesting question. But I think we should first call a spade a spade.
“cite to legal standards of what constitutes coercion, standards which I am familiar with from my training in the law.” I used moral standards. If legal standards match moral standards, that’s probably a good thing. My training in law is being involved in Canadian politics (See comment elsewhere on this blog) and keeping up on news – i.e. very limited.
‘police can throw you in a holding cell on suspicion of a crime without actually charging you for 24 hours– I think we can all agree that such means are not torture.’=legal standard
‘ – I think we can all agree that such means are not torture.’ You mean, morally, right? If so, I would say, ‘it depends–and therefore, we can’t really determine if in a particular instance, reference solely to length of incarceration is sufficient to determine if torture has occurred. To make a moral conclusion, we would need more facts.’
1. I used an example from law enforcement but my standard for “torture” was moral theology not the law.
2. I agree that 24-hour lock-up of suspects can be used immorally. However, I find it hard thinking of a case where that would be torture. Even something like arresting an opposion the day of the televised debate for political reasons — that’s immoral but not torture.
Fr. Schneider, thank you for being so condescending. I am familiar with the terms, and a with Catholic moral theology, you can thank the Jesuits.
Since you so chose to ignore everything I said and place yourself up on an intellectual pedestal, why don’t we play a little Socratic game. Shall we? How about you start us off by defining the terms you think are misunderstood by us naves?
One example: you said “there is no such thing as ‘moral violence'” yet I gave a definition of “violence” by a respected Catholic thinker relating to coercion not physical violence. There is a misunderstanding.
I assume you mean ” Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr John Hardin defines violence as: “Physical or psychological force used to compel one to act against one’s choice, or against an inclination to choose in a certain way.””
The simple fact is Fr. Hardin is playing Screwtape, he is engaging in the redefining of words to fit the desires of his heart, of his emotions. You, Fr. Hardin, and other ’emotive’ priests who have engaged in such intellectual semantics have gravely damaged the formation of the Faithful and of the formation of all of Western Culture by creating a lie of many words.
The etymology of the word violence is clear it is a great example of the Screwtape perversion of language I spoke of in my original post.
Violence is an act, not a feeling or intellectual concept. To redefine and reduce words that are an act to a concept dependent upon individual emotions is a objectively a gravely immoral act because doing so reduces man’s understanding of the truth regarding the act to a relativistic, concept. Thus one reduces morality to relativism – to do so is always intrinsically disordered and produces evil.
Did Christ teach that the truth or an act should be defined by personal emotions or intellectual relativism?
Look at your own words, you were forced to switch your language – “relating to coercion not physical violence”.
That Christ is known as “The Word” shows how gravely important language and the correct defining of words are to the salvation of souls, to the truth, and to Him.
There is a misunderstanding going on. It is a misunderstanding of what truth is and the damage done to truth by those who reduce the understanding of truth to emotivism.
I’m stating and explaining Church teaching. If you think it’s wrung admit your issue is with the Church.
Actually Father, you are stating and explaining only part of the Church’s teaching on the topic.
Here’s the question I have for you. If one only goes out an preaches the easy-sayings and is silent on the hard-sayings of Christ and the Church, when no such qualification of command to teach only the easy-sayings was spoken by Christ, is one denying Christ? If I were to speak to the world only of those parts about you the world would find acceptable, and remain silent on you being a priest, would I be denying who you are?
My issue is not with the Church or her teachings.
My issue is with weak priests who are so sensitive to their emotions and the emotions of others they are afraid to follow Christ’s commandment to speak all of the Word….
Christ never said go out and teach only my easy-to-hear Words.
Christ sat with tax collectors, but never with the writers of the tax code.
Christ commanded us to ‘shake the dust from our feet’, not remain silent on His hard-sayings.
Christ said He was a sword, and there was a sword present during the Last Supper.
Judas was a cafeteria Apostle.
I don’t know where you are coming from. The Catechism uses the term “moral violence” so I went to a trusted priest (and candidate for sainthood) to explain what he meant. I really have a hard time understanding why you accuse people like Fr Hardon and myself as priests who submit dogma to our emotions – we are both far from it.
If we torture someone, we deny Christ; if we justify torture, we deny Christ. I find it hard to understand how you say we deny Christ.
I thank you for your comments but I will stop replying unless you can explain to me where your coming from sufficiently clear for me to understand.
From your own piece: “Fr John Hardin defines violence as: “Physical or psychological force”
What’s so hard to understand? Explain “psychological force”. Explain how the “psychological” can be “violent”.
You see Fr. Schneider, you and priests like Fr Hardon posit the existence of things as if they were from God’s lips to your ears, and expect everyone to bow down intellectually to your assertions.
Neither I nor those who disagree with you have the obligation to explain or make “sufficiently clear” what you do not do the same for. We are challenging your lack of clarity, your lack of intellectual rigor, your intellectual-emotionalism.
Did you know there is also “sound violence”, and that the color blue is violent?
That’s the level you are operating at. You claim it and it must be so….why…because your emotions say it is so.
Oh yes, the mere fact “we torture someone” does not mean we “deny Christ” anymore than any other sin is a denial of Christ. It is not the sin that denies Christ, it is the non-acknowledgement and obstinacy of non-sin that is the denial of Christ.
Understand the difference?
Water boarding was applied to suspects in Argentina in the 70’s by the military dictatorship in place then. It consisted in submerging the head of the victim in a container full of water and it was called “submarino” (submarine, in Spanish) and it’s obvious purpose was to either extract information or a forced confession. Either way, it was undoubtedly torture, as reported by human rights organizations -such as Amnesty International- and the very US government under president Carter. A whole generation of Argentines, as myself, grew in the understanding that this was so, as postulated by the beacon of western democracy and republican governance that has been the US for many in the rest of the world. That there is now an attempt at splitting hairs and mincing words to justify torture now that the US is under attack is a major damage to the reputation of the US, because it affirms the Machiavellian dictum that the end justifies the means conveniently when the Prince happens to be the US. And this, solely from a political point of view. For my life I can’t understand how we’re bringing Jesus to this sordid discussion, in a Catholic forum. Does anyone really think that Christ would condone water boarding another human being? What kind of Christian witness are we giving? For heaven’s sake, stop this nonsense right now! If you’re in doubt, consult with you bishop and let’s see what he says…
“It consisted in submerging the head of the victim in a container full of water and it was called “submarino” (submarine, in Spanish) and it’s obvious purpose was to either extract information or a forced confession.”
This is called drowning someone. It is not the method used on three terrorist leaders over ten years ago.
Father Matthew, since you are such an excellent judge, perhaps you can tell me how it was not sinful for Jesus to mentally, and psychologically torture the sisters of Lazarus by intentionally letting Lazarus die. Just so He could raise Him from the dead? Do you consider Jesus guilty or showing off his strength in the same way that America disgusts you?
Christopher Michael, since you are such an excellent judge, perhaps you can tell me if it was really wrong for the 9/11 hijackers to fly loaded passenger planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, since God permitted it?
Your attempt to justify your one true god, Uncle Sam, only works by saying that nothing that really happens is really wrong — so maybe torturing terrorists is not wrong, but neither is torturing American servicemen or innocent civilians.
Howard, I did not read your entire post. Too insignificant and boring. You obviously do not know Who my God is. Its not the US Guvmunt, moron. Yes, it was really, really wrong for the 9/11 highjackers to fly airplanes into buildings, murder 3,000 innocent human beings, maim thousands more, commit an unjust act of war and declare unjust war in the name of sharia (satan).
Instead of complaining, you should be rejoicing that God permits evil to exist, by the fact that He created freewill which means you can do what ever you want – and no one can blame God for it. By this very fact, evil assholes like you do not automatically evaporate at the moment you have an evil thought. Which for you would have been around 12 years old when you uttered your first words, “ma ma.”
“However, even if it is simply moral violence, making someone believe they are seconds from dying is sufficient moral violence to constitute torture.”
Which is why KSM was told before each waterboarding that he would not die.
Waterboarding had been used for decades to train out own troops. The idea that it is torture is absurd.
Also, your example photograph of waterboarding is wrong. That photograph is obviously of two protesters performing what they think is waterboarding.
Training troops is not torture as the goal is different. The goal of using the training troops is to survive torture by enemies or to maintain calm in a situation where one is close to drowning. I know the seals going to further and actually have you drown that recess that you. Because of the intention, that isn’t torture. If you read the definition the Catechism though it is very clear that waterboarding falls in the definition it gives for torture.
But the physical impact is still the same. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Catechism condemning the gathering of information from murderous thugs, with plans for more murder, using the same method we use on our own troops.
What it comes down to Father is that if Catholic moral teaching has reached the point where a terrorist leader, a man who completely ignores the laws of war, can sit there with a smug look on his face while his plans for mass murder go forward, and we can’t do anything but deprive him of popcorn on movie night, then we have to rethink our reasoning.
“But the physical impact is still the same.” Catholic moral teaching is not based solely on physical impact. For an obvious example, a boyfriend and girlfriend would have the same physical experience of sex as a young married couple but I think we all know that one is right and the other is wrong. The object of choice is the principal determinant in factor of morality but the object is not purely physical: the object might be murder or self-defense but not “killing a man.”
Catholic moral teaching is also not about political expediency: it is politically expedient at times to use unjust means (I refer not just to torture but other things like deception).
No matter how evil a man is – even if he has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City – he is still a human being and has the dignity proper to human being. We must respect that dignity even if it causes us immense pain and suffering. Human dignity is given to us by God and is inviolable. If we lack respect for the human dignity of even the worst criminals, we were lack respect for human dignity of all people. Just like if we lack respect for the dignity of the human person who still in embryo, we lack respect for the human dainty of everyone.
If you are interested in going deeper on Catholic moral theology, I invite you to contact me via Facebook or Twitter.
The pacifism that has riddled the Church over the last 50 years is truly disturbing. Even giants of the Church like JPII and Benedict didn’t correct this, and the result is the Church’s complete inability to confront radical Islam.
So Catholic moral teaching requires us to do nothing while a mushroom cloud appears over Manhattan? We all better hope that when, not if, this country is next attacked that Protestants are running the defense of the country.
The church is teaching is not pacifism! However, we always need to respect the dignity of the person even when they have done things well below their dignity. If a country drops a nuclear bomb on the US, the US can obviously protect itself: it could go in, take that regime out of power, and destroy its nuclear weapons.
Father thaks for taking the time to respond to these replies. I sometimes get involved comboxes and it is wonderful for you to invest your precious time in pointing out the tough facts. Just wanted to support you and let others know too that yes in WWII we did immoral things and immoral things were done by our enemies. We may have been scared and acted a certain way but guess what bombing civilians for the purpose of destroying them psychologically without a real military target is objectively immoral and condemned by the CCC. This includes atomic or conventional bombing. Keep it up Father, You are in my prayers.
Fr. Pete Calabrese
Barnabite Priest
No they didn’t correct it, because it is not incorrect to begin with! Did you miss “turn the other cheek” in your catechesis? Listen to the good Father. He is correcting you in charity. The Church has a very careful definition of just war, and it doesn’t include wholesale killing or torture. Get out your Augustine and refresh your memory. If you think it’s effeminate to be humane, then maybe YOU should go join up with the macho Muslim extremists. But we belong to holy MOTHER Church, not the Fatherland’s army. And as Americans we do not automatically occupy the “less evil” spot, we are everyone of us capable of the entire spectrum of behaviors– from great goodness all the way to complete moral depravity. That’s what the confessional is for. The last people to NOT need the confessional were Christ and His Mother.
This is precisely the type of drivel I was talking about. Christian children are being beheaded and the Church does nothing. You have the nerve to talk about Augustine? He would not be sitting on his hands and spouting platitudes. This weeping and wringing of hands over events involving confirmed terrorists that took place several years ago while Christians are being slaughtered is disgusting.
“That photograph is obviously of two protesters performing what they think is waterboarding.”
I realized it wasn’t the best photo but I couldn’t find a better one that was available online using creative Commons license and I’m a little scrupulous about not using copyrighted images (some of which gave a much better picture – including historical photos of it being done during World War II or Vietnam).
Look, you people are way off the mark on this discussion of waterboarding. Because you are lumping this communication or interrogation technique in with physical beating and torture. Just because the lying liberals want you to do that. I am not going to go into detail here about the setup and materials used, but I will just tell you that the terrorist is not afraid of the water, they get nose plugs and eye goggles, they could care less how many times they are dunked under the water. Harm or fear is not the point of waterboarding. Waterboarding technique is designed to build trust and a bond between the terrorist and his interrogator. After the terrorist realizes that no harm is going to come to him from being waterboarded, he begins to laugh on the inside and says to himself, “stupid Americans.” But then later, the terrorist realizes that he is helpless and he comes to depend on the interrogator to lift him back out of the water – because the terrorist cannot remove himself and his own body weight is holding him under the water. So, over time, a bond and dependency is formed. The terrorist trusts the American; he knows the American will save his life, he comes to depend on the American. He eventually realizes that the people bringing harm to him are his homeland. That is the psychology of waterboarding – it is bringing about the truth and trust, and not about bringing harm. This is why I tell you that you do not know what you are talking about. The main article proves it. Your article is just an effort to convince the public of the lies that the liberal Democrat news media is portraying.
What you describe would clearly be moral violence which constitutes torture. Since writing this article, I have listened to someone describe the helplessness that the US is trying to instill in prisoners where they lose their sense of free agency. If that is your goal even otherwise benign actions could constitute torture.
“Your article is just an effort to convince the public of the lies that the liberal Democrat news media is portraying.”
This comment almost amuses me. To enter the seminary I had to give up active involvement in the Canadian Alliance (the Canadian version of the Republican Party) and if I could vote in the US (I’m still Canadian), I’d probably vote Republican. However, no party is perfect and the church can never become the spiritual arm of a political party. What is torture needs to condemned as torture, just as abortion needs to be condemned as killing babies. We and the church, and especially us priests, have to stand at arms length and give moral principles no matter which party is supporting immorality. In fact, the paragraph I’ve taken most flak for is the last one which is specifically trying to keep this article from being a pro-Democrat piece, and keep it on the plane of moral principles and their application to contemporary events.
The primary audience of this website is youth ministers and since I figured they or their teens might wonder about the church’s stance on the actions of the CIA, I thought I should write this blog.
Father, my concern with your reasoning is that if we apply the criteria you outlined to the Lord, He can be accused of torturing as well. For example, the plagues He sent to Pharaoh most certainly meet the criteria. Indeed, He could then be accused of committing repeated and increasingly severe acts of torture. So that leads us to two problematic conclusions: 1) that the Lord tortures people, which means He commits intrinsic evils or 2) the criteria and/or definition are invalid. I’m going with 2, because 1 isn’t a theologically coherent prospect. What the Lord did to change Pharaoh’s will should actually be seen as a guide for how we use such measures. First, you give multiple warnings. Second, you display the power and authority to back up your warnings, without actually exercising them. Third, if there is no response, you try the least harmful method. Fourth, you allow the person time to respond and change. Fifth, you issue repeated warnings. Sixth, you increase the severity of the response until compliance is given. Sixth, and most importantly, you use it for the common good. In the Lord’s case, He was trying to release and protect a large group of people. Seventh, the Lord didn’t do it out of vengeance – He did it simply to release His people. What is useful about these criteria is that they also have good discriminant validity. They can explain why the actions of American forces in this instance are different from those of ISIS.
Now to be fair, even in light of the Lords methods, there are still some valid criticisms in the report. For example, you want to have people that know what they are doing and how to proceed carefully and with restraint, as our Lord does. They sometimes used amateurs and that doesn’t go well. In fact, it can get bad really quick.
There are things God can do that we are not allowed to, because he is God.
Our Lord never set loss of the sense of free agency as a goal – that is the goal of “learned helplessness.”
Two questions:
1) Would you waterboard one of your children to save the life of another?
I would.
2) Would you volunteer to be waterboarded to save another human beings life?
I would.
Also, if I were captured by an enemy, and I had knowledge of an eminent attack, I would expect to face much worse than waterboarding and I would not find this unjustified.
Why would we risk the lives of thousands of innocent people to avoid waterboarding an admitted enemy of our nation who is dedicated to the slaughter of innocents.
The Catechism permits execution in cases where it is necessary to protect the public, why would waterboarding be different?
Father, you gave a definition:
The Catechism (2297) defines torture as use of “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.”
and then didn’t bother to show how “torture” fits this definition. More importantly, the US does NOT torture. Sorry, you may not like various “coercive methods” and enhanced interrogation. How does “enhanced interrogation and coercive methods fit Catechism 2297? This difficult work might be difficult for modern soft men, but it DOES work against very evil, very trained and strong enemies.
I’m always amused by the likes of you who point out how something offends you, but never offer an alternative method for achieving results. Fact is, evil men will not want to tell you their plans. How exactly will you MAKE THEM TELL YOU?
Well, the interrogators “made them tell” but what they told turned out to be useless. So wow, it was totally worth it, wasn’t it…
That is not true. They obtained information that saved innocent lives.
http://ciasavedlives.com/
Pe Syllum, you seem to forget that you live in a country that has killed 50 million babies.
Who knows, maybe Planned Parenthood have already killed one or more of your own children, without you even realizing it?
So why on earth would you care what “terrorists” do to american civilians, if you will not stop what Planned Parenthood is doing to american civilian babies ?
I don`t get it.
Do you somehow fail to realize that the real enemy is firmly established within your own country, and that you have been deceived into saluting your own evil country?
No foreign terrorist group has ever, nor will they ever, kill as many innocent americans as Planned Parenthood.
So, if you want to protect innocents, then simply form a militia to take down Planned Parenthood, and defend the babies.
And stop pointing your finger at “Al Quida” “ISIS” or any of the other distractions from what is happening right under your nose.
And if you wonder what the evil people are planning hust go to:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org and click the “about-us” section.
There you can read all their evil schemes.
First of all, one of the terrorist prisoners who gave most info was Bin Laden’s driver who was moved to spill the beans due to kindness, such as getting him sugar-free cookies because he was a diabetic. I’m not sure about the effectiveness of torture – but that’s irrelevant because of #2.
Second, we can never do evil so good will come about. If a criminal really doesn’t want to say, we have to accept that.
yeah, and for all of you who shiver at the thought of coercing evil men to tell us what they are doing how do you answer the question:
If they had your 7 y/o daughter and were threatening to brutally torture and kill her, what would you do to the prisoner you had who knew where your daughter was? Would you COERCE him to tell you information?
or are you all so morally bankrupt that you are kind to the cruel?
You do realize that the scenario you describe in your comment is EXACTLY what CIA interrogators threatened to do to the wives and daughters of their prisoners, right?
There`s no need to waterboard evil people to get information about what they are planning.
Just go to: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us
There you can read all about their evil schemes.
Without spilling a drop.
Personnally I find it tragicomic how much the US rants and raves about “terrorists”.
As if they were any worse than a nation that has killed 50 million defenceless civilian babies since Roe vs Wade.
But ofcourse, when you mix hedonism, secularism, feminism, equality and every other form of satanism known to man, in to one system called “democracy”, then you ofcourse end up with and evil system.
And when you have evil systems to begin with, such as all of our “secular western democracies” have become, and you on top of that brainwash the citizens into saluting flags and republics, then you are ofcourse bound to end up with a schizofrenic population, who cannot tell right from wrong, and thus point their fingers at the perceived evils of every other nation, instead of critizing their own.
The hoax of nationalism, which demands your loyalty to groups of people to whom you have nothing in common with, is this:
Most countries have an inbuildt “fail-safe” mechanism buildt in to their constitution that states that the country is “indivisible”.
To make a country “indivisible” basically hinders you from from getting together with those with whom you actually have something in common with, and breaking free to form your own nation.
Thus people are stuck with the sins of the entire “nation”, to which you are braiwashed into assosiating with and saluting.
And once you are stuck with the rest of the sinners of your “nationality” in a false and pretended common destiny, finding a common external enemy becomes paramount and critizing the sins of your own country becomes heresy.
Now once you start to realize that you have been hoaxed into believing you have anything in common with “your fellow americans” or “your fellow swedes” or “your fellow serbians” or “your fellow norwegians” or “your fellow what-nots”, then you are free to seek out fellowships based on true commonality, and not just random nationality.
So people. Break free from the mental chains of “nationalism”.
If you are a Christian, the only country to whom you should pledge your allegiance is The Kingdome of God.
And the Kingdome of God is no “Democracy”.
It is total monarchy in which God reigns supreme, and you will, if God allows you to enter, share citizenship with others based on your loyalty to God`s will alone, in this life.
And your lack of loyalty to any other institutions such as earthly governments or “nations”.
So stop your idol-worship. A “nation” is an idol and you shall not swear your allegiance to anyone but God.
So do not allow your governments to brainwash you, or tell you what countries you should hate.
For instance, ISIS, brutal or not, is at least a truly sincere attempt to establish a nation based purely on the will of God, and the will of God alone.
And you may disagree in their interpretation of what the will of God actually is.
But you should at least respect that they attempt to establish a country based on Gods will alone.
I myself, as a Catholic, would be more than happy to break free from my own nation, and participate in creating a purely Catholic country, devoted entirely to the will of God alone.
Instead of trying to defend the sins of my own country, based on the bogus “national consensus” on how “great and amazing” my own country is, while they kill our kids at Planned Parenthood, and commit every other sin known to man,
How about to make someone give you money? If the Catechism does not say that I may not torture someone to force them to give me money or power or sex or something else I may want, does the silence of the Catechism mean that I can?
Or is it even slightly possible that other, more general principles in the Catechism that we are supposed to understand apply?
Whoops! That comment was meant for another thread.
While ends do not justify means, clearly some ends justify some means … in end of self defense, for example, it is permissible to kill. In the defense of the life of another, it is likewise permissible to kill. Is it permissible to use duress to that end (i.e. to make a credible threat to a hostage taker with a gun to the head of a hostage if you pull the trigger I will hunt down and kill your family – where it would be justified to kill the hostage taker outright) ? Or put another way, may we use duress to accomplish some ends and if so how much duress? In the same vein, I noted that in another response you said that were the US to suffer a nuclear attack, an invasion of the attacker would be justified. But would a credible threat of or an actual nuclear response be justified? I sense your answer, and yet without that credible threat, the likelihood of suffering a nuclear incident is vastly increased. Mutually assured destruction has been the shield under which we have all found safety for decades.
In the case at hand, those in a position to know believed, correctly or incorrectly, that an attack of devastating proportions, perhaps even chemical or nuclear, upon innocent civilian populations was possible if not imminent at any time, and those held had intimate knowledge of means, capabilities, and plans to further that end. The question is may duress be used and to what degree to extract the information that as far as was known would (and may have) prevent such attacks and prevent the wholesale loss of innocent life. Or must we simply house those who bear such will and knowledge? And then again, were such a devastating attack to have claimed massive loss of life – i.e. a dirty bomb, a biological or chemical attack – would we have incurred moral responsibility by having done nothing to prevent it when the means to prevent it was within our grasp?
Our country chose to apply duress. In developing the duress to be used, members of congress from both parties, the full administration of our country and its entire legal apparatus was invoked. Guidelines were developed. The application and the results of such activity was reported. Everyone who needed to know knew. We are truly condemned to exist in the City of Man and here I find evils at every turn. I am not cock sure of the morality or immorality of what was done, just as I am unsure of random killing by drone, the bombing of Dresden in WWII or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What I am certain of is that it has created many opportunities for demagoguery, even ten years hence.
Here’s the rub: the 5th Commandment says thou Shalt not Kill. We all agree that that is pretty clear, yet in certain circumstance it is not only allowed it is the moral thing to do. Therefore anyone who makes a blanket statement on Waterboarding = Torture and is never permissible (Mark Shea) is a moral absolutist and is flat out wrong.
There are no exceptions to the 10 Commandments, just poor translations that seem to need exceptions. A better translation of the 5th Commandment is “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is a distinct subset of killing and is always immoral.
Murder like homicide is a legal distinction not in the 10 commandments, yet we make all kinds of allowances for killing other human beings. Why therefore shouldn’t there be allowances for enhanced interrogation techniques on limited but supervised subjects.
Murder is specifically in the 10 commandments as I said previously. It’s almost like you didn’t read what I wrote. I’m not sure who you are including in you use of the word “we,” but the Catholic Church and Judaism is clear as to what the 5th (or 6th) commandment says. There is no “allowance” given that contradicts this commandment. Therefore, the parallel you are trying to make doesn’t work.
The commandment uses the word “kill” Murder is a Legal definition assigned by the state, tribe etc. to describe a narrow definition of killing or homicide. That definition “murder” changes over time… so now we have first and second degree, manslaughter etc. the commandment doesn’t change does it? If you a convinced it is a translation error, show the original Greek or Hebrew text please that defines it thusly and then what was the legal definition of Murder at the time.
Proof please. “anyone who makes a blanket statement on Waterboarding = Torture and is never permissible is a moral absolutist and is flat out wrong.”
Note: I do not say it is always torture as it can be used to train special forces so they can resist it or be more aware of the effects of drowning. I say that when used to extract information from criminals, enemy combatants, or terrorists, it’s torture.
Fr. , you did concede that waterboarding (I don’t admit that the way we do it is torture, opposed to the Japanese in WWII) may be permissible under certain circumstances. I think the reason for using it very limited situations may be justified even if it is to extract information. So the issue should be what are those circumstances, and Fr. for that discussion I defer to your judgment and moral philosophy education.
The enhanced methods were not used (to my knowledge) to extract confessions. You quote the catechesis: “The Catechism (2297) defines torture as use of “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.”
I don’t believe any of those objectives were what was after. Does the catechesis say anything about extracting information to save other lives. Where?
How about to make someone give you money? If the Catechism does not say that I may not torture someone to force them to give me money or power or sex or something else I may want, does the silence of the Catechism mean that I may?
Or is it even slightly possible that other, more general principles in the Catechism that we are supposed to understand apply?
Of course, there is this bit: “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
There’s a fundamental difference here. Forcing people to give you money or sex or power is a selfish aggrandizement. Using pressure to get information to save lives is an act of love for one’s neighbors. How do you even fight a war under the precept that you can never use physical violence? And I’m not talking about torture or even getting information from captives. I’m talking about fighting a battle. How are you supposed to fight a war, even if it’s a just war? Are you not supposed to harm/kill the enemy? The Catholic church has priests throughout the military. They’re beside the soldiers in battle. What’s the difference of what soldiers do on the battle field and trying to humanely draw information from them, albeit, enhanced techniques?
There’s the rub… mock execution isn’t in the same galaxy as “humane.”
And “extracting information” is a dishonest euphemism attempting to hide the fact that the information sought, IS a confession.
If you look at my first comment, I was talking about the approved techniques, not the claims that came out in this report. How is one supposed to get information out of a captured terrorist? The good Father’s post seems to say that there is no practice that can fit under the catechesis. So is incarceration even allowed since that results in psychological or even moral violence?
Approved EIT did not include mock executions. I’m not apologizing for the claims in the report. I’m defending the approved policy. And no, “extracting information” is exactly what it means. A confession isn’t necessary for prisoners of war. They are not criminals; they are enemy combatants. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
“But EIT” was Approved policy” = “Someone told me it was OK”.
Torture isn’t illegal for criminals but ok for enemies. It’s illegal for any one.
Mock execution is an act in which “a victim is deliberately but falsely made to feel that his execution (or that of another person) is imminent or is taking place.” Water boarding makes the victim believe they are being drowned.
The information is “extracted” by forcing a confession of what they did or are doing, either alone or with others.
And no, I don’t know what I’m talking about in the area of participating in dishonest lawyer word games like those.
It’s a waste of my time. Have a nice day.
Saying “I know my buddy plans to bomb the President’s car on June 5th” or similar is a confession. That is what they sought
That’s not a confession. One confesses to a crime that occurred in the past. Plus you keep confusing the terrorist as criminals. They are enemy combatants, in other words soldiers. There is no need to draw a confession from enemy soldiers. The CIA were after information of future plans or information of other enemy soldiers who are plotting future events.
I don’t think the ends justify the means and that was the rationale used. As stated the CCC defines torture as “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred”. As I understand it only the first part of this definition was satisfied- physical or moral violence was used, but it wasn’t used to extract a confession, to punish anyone, to frighten anyone or to satisfy hatred- it was used to extract information that was known to be known by the Subject regarding an upcoming event. I am still on the fence about the whole thing but lean more toward we shouldn’t have done what we did, regardless of what it got us.
Water boarding is simply a form of mock execution.
It doesn’t matter if it isn’t exactly the same as a staged firing squad, or a “hanging” with a breakaway rope, or sticking a person’s head in a bucket of water.
All of these practices are meant to make a person believe they are being put to death. A lawyer speak disclaimer makes no difference except as a CYA note for the torturer.
MORAL EQUIVALENCY! THE US ‘TORTURES’ JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE…………….NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TORTURE AND ENHANCED INTERROGATION! RIDICULOUS!
The idea that torture is intrinsically immoral (to say nothing of whether or not waterboarding of the EITs are actually torture) makes no sense in light of the inner logic of Catholic moral theology. First of all, the idea that the death penalty (Church teaching still regards capital punishment to be morally licit, ill-informed anti-death penalty posturing of recent pontificates notwithstanding) can be inflicted on a dangerous malefactor as a means of societal self-defense, but mental and physical torment cannot be is moral nonsense. The use of EITs was not employed as a means of punishment or to extract confessions (since the terrorists in question were bragging about their complicity there was no need to extract confessions), but to break them down in order to secure their cooperation in providing us intelligence to prevent another major terrorist attack, which it in fact did. That is a legitimate act of self-defense.
Fr Matthew himself undercuts the “waterboarding as torture is intrinsically immoral” argument with this statement:
“Training troops is not torture as the goal is different. The goal of using the training troops is to survive torture by enemies or to maintain calm in a situation where one is close to drowning. I know the seals going to further and actually have you drown that recess that you. Because of the intention, that isn’t torture. If you read the definition the Catechism though it is very clear that waterboarding falls in the definition it gives for torture.”
Remember, for something to be intrinsically wrong it has to be wrong regardless of circumstance. In the above-cited quote Father admits of an exception.
Furthermore, the purpose of SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance And Escape) Training is to use “[p]hysical or psychological force used to compel one to act against one’s choice, or against an inclination to choose in a certain way.” as a means of training troops. The only difference between that and what the CIA did to a few high value terrorists is that with the former the end was training and the latter was the gaining of intel that saved thousands of innocent lives.
only sensible post made in this whole long diatribe. Jesus never gave us the instance of His action in defense of Blessed Mary His mother. Since the vendors in the Temple square roused His ire to physical demonstration (what would He have done if physically confronted?) we might assume a person trying to rape or kill the Blessed Mother would have awakened in Hell. These men were told they would not be injured. They were informed that the stresses would cease as soon as they abandoned their murderous conspiracy and told the truth about the plots and plotters. It was expressly an act of national defense. As ununiformed, illegal combatant terrorists, they were subject summary execution. When one bears the true burden of responsibility for protecting innocent lives a controlled measure of physical persuasion is appropriate. It takes a really snobbish effete to pretend otherwise. Thank God there are courageous men willing to undertake the difficult work of dealing with these demonic forces. Moral pretense be damned. I’d say forgive me Jesus but we can’t let this man kill another 3000 innocent and peace loving citizens.
1. I said torture not waterboarding was intrinsically evil. Adultery is intrinsically evil but doing the exact same physical action with your wife is moral.
2. The US bishops have said as much.
3. Torture is more demeaning than the death penalty.
Sigh!!!!!!!
“Torture is more demeaning than the death penalty.”
Says who? I think many, if not most people, would say that being lined up in front of a firing squad, getting fried in an electric chair, getting hung, and being lethally injected is more demeaning than than what the CIA did to the terrorists in question. In any event, what is or is not more demeaning is a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. And hence cannot be considered intrinsically evil by any stretch of the imagination.
Furthermore, I experienced systematic humiliation as a part of military training. So, following your logic, boot camp is torture and therefore intrinsically evil. We have clerics exhibiting some of the most nonsensical reasoning. And we wonder why the world doesn’t take the Catholic Church seriously!
Take up your issue with the US bishops. They have said torture is an intrinsic evil but haven’t said the death penalty is.
As to military training, I’ve already addressed this several times if your read other contents here.
“They have said torture is an intrinsic evil but haven’t said the death penalty is.” I beg your pardon Fr. Matthew. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm But I must have misunderstood your statement. We as Catholic Church defend the dignity of all life no matter of what sins were comitted, death penalty was opposed many times on many occasions.
Thank you,
+Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
If you send a link, read it. The words “intrinsic evil” don’t even appear in your link. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil if you understand what is mean by that term (i.e. I know you aren’t the read Cardinal Burke as he would know that).